Digg/Buzz It Up

POLITICO 44

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) is denying a CIA claim that he gave the go-ahead to destroy tapes that showed agency officials waterboarding terror suspect Abu Zubayda, disputing a recently released CIA document that claims the former Intelligence Committee chairman knew about plans to destroy waterboarding evidence.

In a Feb. 4, 2003, briefing that included Roberts and one of then-Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller's top staffers, CIA officials told Roberts that they intended to destroy the tapes.

"[CIA Deputy Director for Operations Jim] Pavitt and [CIA General Counsel Scott] Muller briefly described the circumstances surrounding the existence of tapes of the Zubayda debriefing," a summary of the briefing says. "Muller indicated that it was our intention to destroy these tapes, which were created in any case as but an aide to the interrogations. ... Senator Roberts listened carefully and gave his consent.”

Roberts said he never signed off on destroying the waterboarding tapes.

"At no time did Senator Roberts assent to the destruction of any videotapes. Sen. Roberts today called on the Justice Department to release all the memoranda that exist regarding briefings for all members of Congress," Roberts spokeswoman Sarah Little said. "As the memorandum clearly states, Sen. Roberts received his initial briefing on the CIA interrogation program on February 4, 2003. He was briefed by the CIA’s General Counsel that the interrogations were lawful according to the National Security Council and the Justice Department, including the Criminal Division and the Attorney General.”

When the existence of the tapes was revealed, Rockefeller said he had "limited information about the existence of the tapes, we were not consulted on their usage nor the decision to destroy the tapes.” But according to the CIA documents, Rockefeller’s staffer was supposed to brief the senator about the waterboarding tapes and the plans to destroy them.

A special prosecutor appointed by the Justice Department is investigating whether the CIA officials who destroyed the tapes broke the law by eliminating material that could have been used as evidence in a federal trial. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment about whether Roberts and Rockefeller are or will be involved in the probe, citing the ongoing investigation.

The CIA document also says a staffer asked about former Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham's request for a congressional investigation into the enhanced interrogation techniques program — an idea Roberts quickly dismissed.

The senator interjected that he saw no reason for the committee to pursue such a request and could think of 'ten reasons right off why it is a terrible idea' for the committee to do any such thing has has been proposed," the document says.

CIA briefers walked Roberts and the Rockefeller staffer through a detailed description of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques that were used and described the "inappropriate" interrogation of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole.

"The enhanced techniques were described in considerable detail, including how the water board was used. The general counsel described the process by which the techniques were approved by a bevy of lawyers," the document says. "The senator was briefed by Pavitt on the events surrounding the inappropriate 'interrogation' of Nashiri. These included the cocking of a pistol (reportedly unloaded) near his blind-folded face, and the brandishment of an electric hand drill (at this, Senator Roberts winced)."

On February 4, 2003 Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller aide of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were given a briefing in which EITs described in considerable detail, including how the water board was used.

The techniques that were approved by DoJ was also raised by Senator Roberts but NOT by Rockefeller aide.

Documents also add that Mr. Rockefeller, the Committee's ranking Democrat, was later given an individual briefing.

Rockefeller wrote to Dick Cheney in July of 2003 about the techniques.

Rockefeller was given at least 12 briefings over time.

Later

Rockefeller disclaimed any knowledge of the opinions.

Rockefeller "If White House documents exist that set the policy for the use of coercive techniques such as waterboarding, those documents have been kept from the committee"

"That is unacceptable, and represents the latest example of the Bush Administration withholding critical information from Congress and the American people in an attempt to limit our oversight of sensitive intelligence collection activities.

Rockefeller LIED.

Why is this coming up now?.............Distraction and destroy the opposition.

All of you pro torture conservatives should try to learn a little something about American History. We made it through the Revolutionary War without torture. In fact it was the Father of our Nation, or George Washington for my history challenged conservative friends that began the tradition of humane treatment of prisoners. We made it through the war of 1812, the Civil War, the first world war, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Iraq war without torture.

Then Bush and Cheney let 19 guys with box cutters destroy the World Trade Center and hit the pentagon. After they were warned one month before the attacks that "Osama Bin Laden is Determined to Strike inside the US." Any of you conservatives remember that?? So after they let 19 guys with box cutters attack America, then we resort to torture.

Then Bush and Cheney let 19 guys with box cutters destroy the World Trade Center and hit the pentagon. After they were warned one month before the attacks that "Osama Bin Laden is Determined to Strike inside the US." Any of you conservatives remember that?? So after they let 19 guys with box cutters attack America, then we resort to torture.

Being a true independent I have no stake in anything Clinton did with regard to the war on terror now or then.

And, to answer your question: I would waterboard and/or start cutting off fingers of anyone that was going to harm my daughter. And if they raped and murdered her I would want to beat them to death with a baseball bat.

However, I have a son too. I have freinds that have sons in the military. If they were captured I would want them treated humanely. That is why we have laws. So that we get to justice and we take revenge off the table.

American Values!! Not revenge. That is why we have always been the shining beacon around the world. That is until Bush and Cheney came to power.

However, I have a son too. I have freinds that have sons in the military. If they were captured I would want them treated humanely. That is why we have laws. So that we get to justice and we take revenge off the table.

American Values!! Not revenge. That is why we have always been the shining beacon around the world. That is until Bush and Cheney came to power

Do you really think that our military is treated with "care" when captured by the current terrorists?

Seems to me that they didn't care much about treating Daniel Pearl with humane treatment when they cut his head off.

They are NOT adhering to the Geneva Convention.

Sorry, but waterboard of three captured terrorists was worth it, to NOT kill any more troops and get information to STOP attacks, on American citizens, including my children who could be on a plane, bridge, train or building.

However, I have a son too. I have freinds that have sons in the military. If they were captured I would want them treated humanely. That is why we have laws. So that we get to justice and we take revenge off the table.

Sorry, but that ship has already sailed. US forces have not faced an enemy with any respect for the "laws of war" since (irony of ironies) the Wehrmacht of WWII. Nothing that the US does or does not do will have any effect on how our enemies would treat our service personnel.

Did you hear what General Petraues said this Sunday? Whenever we short cut our American Values it ends up hitting us in the backside.

Did you hear what he said about Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib? He sounded almost like the President of the United States of America, or the Messiah, or Hussien or Barry however you guys refer to our President these days.

Why do conservatives only listen to the Generals when it is politically correct?

PS. Keep up the conversation. Usually when I talk to my conservative buddies they run for the hills whenever you have a rational reality based debate on anything these days.

You are right about the part that they were all briefed and they did nothing. The democrats in congress are just as guilty as the republicans in congress.

However, based on the Nuremburg trials, Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes. They are also guilty of treason. They outed a CIA agent in a time of war.

Based on your logic we could just behave like the Nazis and start marching them in the ovens. Or why don't we just Nuke em.

The conversation is about American values. Do conservatives simply believe that we don't have values?

It seems today's Christians are old testament Christians... eye for an eye. What happened to the teachings of Jesus our Lord and Savior. He taught us that sometimes we need to turn the other cheeck. When we have to win the hearts and minds of One Billion Muslims, maybe traditional American Values will work better??

You are right about the part that they were all briefed and they did nothing. The democrats in congress are just as guilty as the republicans in congress.

However, based on the Nuremburg trials, Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes. They are also guilty of treason. They outed a CIA agent in a time of war.

Based on your logic we could just behave like the Nazis and start marching them in the ovens. Or why don't we just Nuke em.

The conversation is about American values. Do conservatives simply believe that we don't have values?

It seems today's Christians are old testament Christians... eye for an eye. What happened to the teachings of Jesus our Lord and Savior. He taught us that sometimes we need to turn the other cheeck. When we have to win the hearts and minds of One Billion Muslims, maybe traditional American Values will work better??

However, based on the Nuremburg trials, Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes. They are also guilty of treason. They outed a CIA agent in a time of war.

Based on your logic we could just behave like the Nazis and start marching them in the ovens. Or why don't we just Nuke em.

The conversation is about American values. Do conservatives simply believe that we don't have values?

It seems today's Christians are old testament Christians... eye for an eye. What happened to the teachings of Jesus our Lord and Savior. He taught us that sometimes we need to turn the other cheeck. When we have to win the hearts and minds of One Billion Muslims, maybe traditional American Values will work better??

I do not believe that either Bush or Cheney is guilty of war crimes. Further, neither Bush nor Cheney outed Ms. Plame. We now know that this was done inadvertently by Deputy Secretary of State Armitage.

For the record, I am an adherent of no religion.

I believe that in the age of proliferating WMD, and facing an enemy who regards civilians as valid targets and welcomes death himself, the values of which you speak are not only traditional, they are antique. Finally, I know that the program under discussion, enhanced interrogation, saved thousands of lives.